I was thinking the other day about false doctrines in the way of a particular teaching, or dogma that is believed to be true but really isn’t. In a broader sense, a false doctrine could include various popularly accepted theories such as string theory, or the theory of free trade.
People, including those in academia, attach to such doctrines as if they were true without really doing their homework to see if the claims have enough warranted evidence to back them up. The real danger of a false doctrine such as the eugenics theory, for example, can be tragic and devastating even leading to genocide.
In another example, classical economics was shown by John Maynard Keynes to be at least an inadequate theory of economics when it came to understanding fluctuations in employment. Needless to say, what happens to the unemployed is extremely important; to ignore it as was the case with classical economics owes to the strong belief in a false doctrine. On this same key, the philosophy of Ayn Rand proved to be a false doctrine and one inherently dangerous and shortsighted which claimed selfishness is a virtue.
Let’s face it, a lot of us find it hard to give up a false doctrine despite the evidence presented to us which is to the contrary. It was certainly difficult to the planters in the Southern states to give up their false economic doctrine which depended upon slavery which was of no real economic benefit to the South. It only benefited the wealthy planters. Eventually the false doctrine the planters embraced led to the Civil War.
Those who tenaciously embrace false doctrines seem to have fallen in love with them too easily without any critical examination of the evidence. It is always puzzled me why many Buddhists—especially Western Buddhists—almost go bonkers when someone like myself points out to them that the Buddha never actually denied the self unambiguously; that when you look at the evidence for a rejection of self, you find none. Of these same people, almost all have neither read much of the older Pali canon, nor are they familiar with Sutras of the Mahayana canon which unambiguously affirm the self such as the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. And despite all the evidence you show them, for example this pericope from the Lankavatara Sutra, they refuse to budge.
"Those who propound the doctrine of No Self are to be shunned in the religious rites of the monks, and not to be spoken to, for they are offenders of the Buddhist doctrines, having embraced the dual views of being and non-Being" (trans., Suzuki).
It seems like every fiber of their being is invested in the false doctrine. Some even become very angry and undertake measures to harm their opponent. This is certainly so in the sciences which are always undergoing a paradigm war. One can see this in the current war over the big bang, the evidence for it being on shaky grounds or not at all (see Eric Lerner’s book, The Big Bang Never Happened).
Presently, our world is suffering from a number of false doctrines which might account for many of our problems and conflicts. But instead of having an open mind; looking at the countervailing evidence, most will instead decide to cling to their false doctrines even more, being even more resistant. It doesn’t matter if the false doctrine is an economic one or concerns Buddhism’s notion of self.
There is no "war" over the big bang. It's the best extant theory. TBBNH is not a serious contender.
Posted by: Bob Morris | July 20, 2011 at 08:37 AM